Those who possessed sovereignty and political power agreed our new nation required a constitution, and one was duly drafted and approved. But when was their understanding of this document contested to the extent it became necessary to say we need to reclaim it?
Early opponents of our Constitution were easy to identify since they rejected it outright; but later, the tools of reinterpretation and amendment were used to slowly change its character. This was a political process, often using racial or religious language, accompanied by the centralisation of power.
A significant amendment came in 1988 when the courts were divested of the judicial power of the Federation. This has further enabled specific articles being highlighted as a means to justify laws and policies that might previously have been deemed unconstitutional.
The Constitution may only be reclaimed through a political process using history as its basis: From the intentions of the Constitution’s authors and approvers, to the commentary of leaders who served afterwards. Both Tunku Abdul Rahman and Tun Hussein Onn opined the way the Constitution was being treated in later years was not as they understood it. Now, the phenomenon of reinterpretation by politicians continues largely unchallenged.
We are aware of how our Constitution became the most amended Constitution in the world, destroying what our forefathers had provided for cross and balance on governments, such as the judiciary, Senate and various other processes.
One man had been responsible for it, yet today we still want him to lead us into Canaan as if he is Moses or the Messiah when he is more a Satan. Sheeesh.
Malaysians must be morons, masochistically foolish. Thus Tunku Zain Al-’Abidin, bright spark as he is, might have just wasted his efforts on us in airing some very vital thoughts for our future.
It's like casting pearls before swines.